Semi-Structured In-Depth Interview

Using in-depth interview research data helps to gain authentic results from individuals who have concluded the planning and co-curricular engagement on FHaO curricula. Asking specific open-ended questions eliminates extraneous factors that may compromise the internal validity of my study. The in-depth interviews are necessary to measure the success of programming because there are only a small number of study subjects. Surveys or closed-ended questions are less personal and do not create layered answers that build interpersonal relationships between the interviewers and interviewees. There will also not be enough variation if I employ this method of closed-ended questioning or surveys.  I plan on interviewing FHaO staff and their Indigenous educational partners. Because I have worked so closely with a number of my interviewees, my interview questions were co-constructed. The co-constructing process essentially comprised of an invitation to my interviewees to meet and discuss what they wanted to personally gain from the project and if there were any particular subject areas/or questions they wanted me to include. Andrew McConnell and Jasmine Wong were mainly part of the co-constructing process. They both gave me inspiration and feedback on the questions which went through several revision processes. Since the interviews were semi-structured, not all the questions were asked. They were just there to guide the conversation. I relied heavily on Linda Tuhiwai-Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies Research and Indigenous Peoples and bell hook’s Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom for the interview question framework .The questions are the following: 

Creation of FH curricula 

1. What was your first experience with Facing History?

2. What did you hope for in engaging in this work?

1. Why/when did you decide to play more of an active role in FH’s curriculum development or professional learning work?  

2. Alternately, at what point did you want Facing History to play an active role in partnering on curriculum development or professional development for your institution? 

1. What were the challenges that came up in the work?

1. Can you share about a moment that stands out?

2. What do you think are the two most important takeaways from how you worked together?

1. What were the most positive outcomes of the work, both personally for you and collectively for education/students/etc?

1. Can you share about a moment that stands out?

Co-teaching, co-constructing, collaborating, teamwork

1. Reflecting on your experience working with staff at Facing History, and other experiences working in partnership in education, what about the work and way of working sustains you? 

2. How does the co-creation of curriculum and programming impact your pedagogy? 

3. What types of relationships were forged during the cultivation of curriculum (insert Stolen Lives or MMIW) and do you maintain any of those relationships today?

4. Could you discuss the advantages and disadvantages of working in teams?

5. Have you noticed a difference in how you teach since working in partnership with other educators outside of FH? 

Ideas of justice, individual and communal values

1. What does justice mean to you in the context of education? What are the elements of education that need to be changed for education to be just?

1. How does justice in education interact with justice more broadly in society for you?

1. How did you try to serve/ achieve/ reach for justice in the curriculum you co-developed? 

2. Justice, truth, and reconciliation in education have finally become topics in general Canadian discourse. How will this support your goals?

Justice and FH

1. Does Facing History align effectively with your personal values and views on education and justice? How or how not?

2. What are the limitations of FH? What is effective about it? 

3. Do you think the FH curriculum could be replicated for other sensitive subject matters?

Going into the interview, I knew that a semi-constructed model would be necessary for us to have a conversation rather than create divisions between the interviewer (me) and interviewee (the partner). Semi-constructed interviews allowed for the interviewees to talk about whatever they’d like without the constraints of sticking to any formulaic way of answering questions. This method allowed for a more candid, heart-filled, and intentional conversation. Using any other method aside from semi-structured in-depth interviews would be antithetical to PAR and CBR my chosen research methodologies. 

I approached my interviews with the framework of participatory media. This approach has many advantages as it demands that the work be co-created as much as possible. It also opens doors to honest dialogue that might not be shared in other educational spaces and allows me to engage in conservation while creating a sense of respect and community. In order for the work to be truly participatory, both the audience and the interviewees need to be actively engaged in the hopes that mindset shifts or actions may occur.